Source
https://www.rewiring.nz/symmetrical-export-tariffs — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Rewiring Aotearoa (2024) — Symmetrical Export Tariffs
The policy companion to OT_065 — completes the import-vs-export c/kWh asymmetry with numbers
Advocacy note arguing NZ distribution tariffs should pay battery customers the SAME network peak rate for EXPORT as they’re charged for peak CONSUMPTION (“symmetrical export tariffs”, SET) — because a kWh exported at peak relieves network congestion exactly as a kWh of avoided consumption does. The NI-load-bearing object: today a peak import costs ~33 c/kWh but a peak export earns only ~12 c/kWh (wholesale only — Vector’s network “injection” charge is literally $0.0000); under SET, peak export would earn ~26 c/kWh. Plus a battery-aggregation resilience figure (120,000 homes with a battery = Manapouri’s peak output for 1–2 hours). Advocacy policy piece → data_quality: medium.
Summary
Rewiring Aotearoa argues that NZ’s one-way distribution tariffs reward reducing your own peak consumption but pay nothing for the network value of exporting at peak from a home/farm/business battery — a “value hole” that suppresses cost-effective battery investment and pushes NZ toward over-building poles and wires. It calls for mandatory symmetrical export tariffs (pay the network peak rate for peak export, symmetric with the peak import charge), shows the materiality (export payment would roughly double, from ~12 to ~26 c/kWh), demonstrates alignment with the Electricity Authority’s own distribution-pricing principles (cost-reflective, LRMC-based, subsidy-free), and frames distributed batteries as a security + resilience resource (no single failure point, unlike poles and wires).
Key claims
- claim: "The import-vs-export value hole (Figure, 'Today's pricing' vs SET; peak rate 13.61 c/kWh Vector 2024): today a consumer pays ~33 c/kWh to IMPORT at peak (peak network import + wholesale + retail + other) but is paid only ~12 c/kWh to EXPORT at peak (an approximation of wholesale price only — the network peak value is absent). Under a Symmetrical Export Tariff the peak network rate is paid symmetrically for export, raising the export payment to ~26 c/kWh — roughly DOUBLE. Vector's 2024 network tariff lists the export ('injection') charge as $0.0000/kWh."
source_location: "'What are Symmetrical Export Tariffs?' + 'Example of Symmetrical Export Tariffs' pp.2–3 (charts + Vector table)"
- claim: "Battery-aggregation resilience: 120,000 homes (≈5% of NZ households) each with a medium-sized battery would have the same responsive PEAK-REDUCTION power as New Zealand's largest hydro station (Manapouri) for an hour or two — they would not store as much energy as Manapouri, but could match its power output when the system most needs it. Residential networks typically operate at <50% utilisation."
source_location: "'How will this improve security and resilience?' p.3 + p.5"
- claim: "Symmetrical export tariffs are NOT a feed-in subsidy: they pay export cost-reflectively at the same rate participants charge for consumption, consistent with the Electricity Authority's distribution-pricing principles (signal economic costs, subsidy-free, reflect network-use impacts on economic cost via LRMC, encourage efficient network alternatives). A reliably peak-exporting battery defers network investment, so should 'win' over a network build on a level playing field."
source_location: "'Do they fit within existing distribution pricing frameworks?' p.6 + FAQ p.7"
- claim: "Current state (FAQ, July 2024): no NZ distribution business (EDB) pays a network rate for export; some retailers pay for solar export (one, Octopus, pays a higher rate during specific high-demand times) but those reflect only the WHOLESALE value of export, not network value. The EA's distribution tariff reform (incl. its May 2024 'Distributed Pricing Reform: Next Steps') has focused solely on consumption incentives and is 'silent on the need for payments for peak export'."
source_location: "FAQ p.7 + p.4 (footnote 3)"Neobiome Intelligence relevance
Completes the export side of the self-consumed-vs-export asymmetry introduced in OT_065, now with absolute c/kWh: a kWh of self-consumption avoids ~33 c/kWh of delivered cost, but a kWh exported today earns only ~12 c/kWh (wholesale/buy-back, not network value). This pins down the NI export-valuation parameter — exports should be valued at the buy-back rate (~12 c/kWh, cf. CR_011), not the delivered cost — which is precisely what makes battery self-consumption (avoiding 33c) far more valuable than export (earning 12c) in the D21 economics. The SET scenario (~26 c/kWh) is a future/policy upside, not the current model default. The 120,000-homes-=-Manapouri figure is a community-battery aggregation datapoint for the resilience/I06 framing (distributed storage as peak capacity without a single failure point). Caveat: advocacy policy note; the c/kWh are Vector-2024-peak-rate illustrations, not a national tariff.
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- RT_238 — Octopus Energy NZ peak-differentiated solar-export tariff: the one NZ retailer paying a higher export rate at peak — a concrete NZ peak-export buy-back datapoint to refine the NI export-valuation rate (complements CR_011).
Research gaps
- A national (vs Vector-only) figure for the peak network import rate + export “injection” charge across EDBs would let NI parameterise the import/export asymmetry beyond the single Vector-2024 illustration; the pilot EDB tariff is held in REG_002.
Connections
Links to
Referenced by
EDT domains (1): D01: Renewable Energy & Storage Systems
SSI indicators (1): I01: Financial & Economic Self-Sufficiency
Sources (1): OT_153